Shins said:

Enlil said:

Shins said:

Enlil said:

You aren't actually arguing that socialism includes the state owning labor, are you?

---

Of course I am, by definition.

---

Lol, okay.  Now I know you're trolling.  Ownership of human beings is not in any way a part of socialism.

---

Labour is not the same thing as human beings for one. 

For two yes it is if you truly own yourself and your effects, no socialist collective could take your stuff without claiming some degree of ownership over you.

---

Shins said:

airclay said:

lol please again for the however many times I've asked please present one source of right wing anarchism ideology? because I provide endless source of left wing anarchistic thought.

How do you refute that every historical anarchist revolution was leftist based? 

Do you have any idea what autonomous democracy is?

your simple understandings are laughable, it's very obvious that you may have read a lot but that doesn't quite mean you understood it.

---

One source of right wing anarchism;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux


Anarchism cannot be left wing by its very definition
  Why do you keep ignoring this? Why do you refuse to think for yourself and continue to quote  so-called "authorities" (the irony) instead of adressing my arguments? 

Yeah I know what an autonomous democracy" is - a form of government.  Democracy is a form of government.  In democracy, the majority have authority over the minority, and how do you enforce democracy? With authorities.

You are not thinking at all. THINK about it.

---

Shins said:

Enlil said:

Shins said:

Enlil said:

You aren't actually arguing that socialism includes the state owning labor, are you?

---

Of course I am, by definition.

---

Lol, okay.  Now I know you're trolling.  Ownership of human beings is not in any way a part of socialism.

---

Labour is not the same thing as human beings for one. 

For two yes it is if you truly own yourself and your effects, no socialist collective could take your stuff without claiming some degree of ownership over you.

---

starfire_xes said:

though big bads more or less correct about capitalism, isnt what exists in the US.  When Government makes the rules an regulations, and picks the winners and losers, is more appropriately a degree of fascism. 

Now, people might say socialism is the answer, but in order to make it work--just like facism--it requires an authoritarian government to hold a gun to people's head and make them comply with the system.  That's whats wrong today with the US.  Frankly, I dont know what the solution is, but it definitley is NOT more government.

---

starfire_xes said:

Thats much correct!  But the same thing can be said for socialism--in fact, I don't remember exactly who, but one of the famous early communists in the soviet union, maybe lenin,was disillusioned with what he saw as the true result of the communist state, i.e. that the end result, like capitalism, would really end up being statism, i.e. the people having no control, and only the state controlling all.

I don't remember where i saw it but ill try to find that writing and who it is attributed to.

---

djbluntmagic said:

starfire_xes said:

Thats much correct!  But the same thing can be said for socialism--in fact, I don't remember exactly who, but one of the famous early communists in the soviet union, maybe lenin,was disillusioned with what he saw as the true result of the communist state, i.e. that the end result, like capitalism, would really end up being statism, i.e. the people having no control, and only the state controlling all.

I don't remember where i saw it but ill try to find that writing and who it is attributed to.

---

Could you be thinking of Trotsky's opposition to Stalinism?

---

starfire_xes said:

djbluntmagic said:

starfire_xes said:

Thats much correct!  But the same thing can be said for socialism--in fact, I don't remember exactly who, but one of the famous early communists in the soviet union, maybe lenin,was disillusioned with what he saw as the true result of the communist state, i.e. that the end result, like capitalism, would really end up being statism, i.e. the people having no control, and only the state controlling all.

I don't remember where i saw it but ill try to find that writing and who it is attributed to.

---

Could you be thinking of Trotsky's opposition to Stalinism?

---

yes, quite possibly, but ill have to find the paper to know for sure.

---

Tipote said:

Just as what is happening in Europe is the rise of the right, there is also a rise of the left. This is not isolated to Europe either. The entire Western world is seeing the resurgence of a larger polarisation.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

Shins said:

airclay said:

lol please again for the however many times I've asked please present one source of right wing anarchism ideology? because I provide endless source of left wing anarchistic thought.

How do you refute that every historical anarchist revolution was leftist based? 

Do you have any idea what autonomous democracy is?

your simple understandings are laughable, it's very obvious that you may have read a lot but that doesn't quite mean you understood it.

---

One source of right wing anarchism;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux


Anarchism cannot be left wing by its very definition
  Why do you keep ignoring this? Why do you refuse to think for yourself and continue to quote  so-called "authorities" (the irony) instead of adressing my arguments? 

Yeah I know what an autonomous democracy" is - a form of government.  Democracy is a form of government.  In democracy, the majority have authority over the minority, and how do you enforce democracy? With authorities.

You are not thinking at all. THINK about it.

---

Stefan Molyneux is a fucking cult leader who tells people to cut ties with their families if they refuse to convert to Libertarian ideals, because they want to kill you.

Are you a Stefan Molyneux guy? Please say yes. That will clear some things up here.

---

starfire_xes said:

Anarchism is completely unworkable.  The reason is, there will always be the 'alpha'==the strong leader, who will fill the void.  That is, if there is no state, there will soon be an opportunistic leader who takes advantage of the situation.  As soon as there is a group of people in the anarchy who join forces to stop the authoritarian, you are presented with statism---rather than having the one strong leader who takes charge, you have a committee of authoritarians who take charge.

---

Quote:

ts weird when you talk about anarchism being unworkable on the national scale. airclay can correct me if i'm wrong but i understand that anarchism is about increased and localised democracy. To some extent i would imagine there would have to be somekind of sub regional, regional, national scale of government for some jobs but this could be minimal instead with the focus of power at the local level. I would say that the right wing is more concerned about nationalism, thats partly why they are losing their heads about refugees or musliminians taking our country and jobs.

---

airclay said:

Lol shins youre still not in the deep end of the thought process  and telling everyone else that they don't know what they're talking about. Democracy is not a form of government but an idea within. You're really outside of your realm of knowledge.

---

Quote:

 setting up an autonomous democratic state which is the aim of anarchism in few words.

---